Eight Subjects

Notes and Case Digests

Technology Developers vs Court of Appeals

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS, INC v. CA

G.R. No. 94759, Jan. 21, 1991, 201 SCRA

FACTS:

Technology Developers, a corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of charcoal briquette,
received a letter from acting mayor Pablo Cruz: 1) ordering the full cessation of its plant in Guyong, Sta.
Maria, Bulacan until further order, and 2) requesting its Plant Manager to bring before the office of the
mayor its building permit, mayor's permit, and Region III-Pollution of Environment and Natural
Resources Anti-Pollution Permit.

Technology Developers undertook to comply with the request to produce the required documents. It
sought to secure the Region III-Pollution of Environment and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit
although prior to the operation of the plant, a Temporary Permit to Operate Air Pollution Installation was
issued to it. Petitioners also sent its representatives to the office of the mayor to secure a mayor’s permit
but were not entertained.

Eventually, the acting mayor ordered that the plant premises be padlocked, effectively causing the
stoppage of operation. This was done without previous and reasonable notice.
Technology Developers then instituted an action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
preliminary injunction against the acting mayor with Bulacan RTC, alleging that the closure order was
issued in grave abuse of discretion.

The RTC found that the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was proper, ordering
the acting mayor to immediately revoke his closure order and allow Technology Developers to resume its
normal business operations until the case has been adjudicated on the merits.

Upon MR, the Provincial Prosecutor presented evidence as to the allegation that "Due to the
manufacturing process and nature of raw materials used, the fumes coming from the factory may
contain particulate matters which are hazardous to the health of the people. As such, the company
should cease operating until such a time that the proper air pollution device is installed and operational."

Reassessing the evidence, the RTC set aside its order granted the writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction. The CA denied Technology Developer's petition for certiorari for lack of merit.

ISSUE:

W/N the acting mayor had a legal ground for ordering the stoppage of Technology Developer

HELD:

YES. The following circumstances militate against the maintenance of the writ of preliminary injunction
sought by petitioner:

1. No mayor's permit had been secured. While it is true that the matter of determining whether there is
a pollution of the environment that requires control if not prohibition of the operation of a business is
essentially addressed to the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, it must be recognized that the mayor of a town has as much responsibility to protect
its inhabitants from pollution, and by virtue of his police power, he may deny the application for a permit
to operate a business or otherwise close the same unless appropriate measures are taken to control
and/or avoid injury to the health of the residents of the community from the emissions in the operation
of the business.

2. The Acting Mayor called the attention of petitioner to the pollution emitted by the fumes of its plant
whose offensive odor "not only pollute the air in the locality but also affect the health of the residents in
the area," so that petitioner was ordered to stop its operation until further orders.

3. This action of the Acting Mayor was in response to the complaint of the residents of Barangay
Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, directed to the Provincial Governor through channels.

4. The closure order of the Acting Mayor was issued only after an investigation was made by Marivic
Guina who in her report observed that the fumes emitted by the plant goes directly to the surrounding
houses and that no proper air pollution device has been installed.

5. Petitioner failed to produce a building permit from the municipality of Sta. Maria, but instead
presented a building permit issued by an official of Makati on March 6, 1987.

6. While petitioner was able to present a temporary permit to operate by the then National Pollution
Control Commission on December 15, 1987, the permit was good only up to May 25, 1988. Petitioner
had not exerted any effort to extend or validate its permit much less to install any device to control the
pollution and prevent any hazard to the health of the residents of the community.

Court takes note of the plea of petitioner focusing on its huge investment in this dollar-earning industry.
It must be stressed however, that concomitant with the need to promote investment and contribute to
the growth of the economy is the equally essential imperative of protecting the health, nay the very lives
of the people, from the deleterious effect of the pollution of the environment.
● The well-known rule is that the matter of issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to
the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and its action shall not be disturbed on appeal unless it is
demonstrated that it acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or otherwise, in grave abuse of
its discretion. By the same token the court that issued such a preliminary relief may recall or dissolve the
writ as the circumstances may warrant.

Petition denied.

Share

No comments:

Post a Comment

Home

View web version

Powered by Blogger.